The Court of Appeal on Monday, April 1 dismissed an appeal by Li Shengwu.

What was the appeal for?

The appeal is over the validity of the service of papers on Li for a contempt of court case -- while he was overseas.

Li's appeal against a High Court order that allowed the papers to be served on him in the United States was heard in January 2019.

Papers served on Li when he was overseas

The High Court had allowed the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) permission to serve papers on Li, who is now living in the US.

A three-judge Court of Appeal dismissed Li's appeal in a 66-page written decision released on April 1, 2019.

Li, 34, is the son of Lee Hsien Yang and the nephew of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

What was Li appealing?

The High Court had dismissed Li's application in March 2018.

The High Court judge had ruled that Section 7 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act gave the High Court jurisdiction to commit for contempt.

Grounds for current appeal dismissal

On April 1, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.

Justice Steven Chong said in the written judgment that the service of the papers was "properly granted" on the basis of Order 11 of the Rules of Court.

Justice Chong agreed with the decision of the High Court judge.

What did Li say?

Li, an Assistant Professor of Economics at Harvard University, had allegedly said in a July 2017 Facebook post that Singapore has a "pliant court system" and that the Singapore government was "very litigious".

The post could be viewed by his Facebook friends only.

The AGC then served papers on Li in US in relation to contempt of court.

Li applied to the High Court to set aside the court order granting this service of papers on him.

What AG argued

The AG argued during the appeal that scandalising contempt engaged the High Court's original criminal jurisdiction and was a type of criminal contempt.

Jurisdiction was not established by the service of the papers, according to the AG.

The AG argued that jurisdiction had already been established in Singapore when Li published the alleged post.

What Li's lawyer argued

Li' lawyer Abraham Vergis argued that proper service of the papers in accordance with the Rules of Court was what established jurisdiction over someone who committed contempt of court.

He also argued that personal jurisdiction over the individual would also have to be established by proper service of the papers.

What three appeal judges ruled

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, along with Judges of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang and Steven Chong, who heard the case, ruled that the court "takes personal jurisdiction over a foreign contemnor".

The judges noted that "the specific issue before us is unlikely to repeat itself for future cases involving foreign contemnors".

This is so as it has now been established that service of papers outside jurisdiction is firmly grounded under Order 11 of the Rules of Court.

The judges wrote: "Nonetheless, this judgment serves to explain the proper source of the court's jurisdiction as well as the correct juridical basis for contempt cases."

In other words, the apex court held that service of the papers was allowable given the provision in the Rules of Court.

This permits papers to be served out of Singapore in cases where a claim is made under any written law.

"Service out of the jurisdiction was properly effected on the appellant because the AG's claim for the court to exercise its power to punish for contempt was properly a claim made under written law," said Judge of Appeal Chong, who penned the judgment.

How Li characterises appeal ruling

According to Li in a Facebook post on April 1 after his appeal was dismissed, the judges decision amounted to this:

"The Singapore AG’s attempts to retroactively apply new rules were not successful before the court. However, the court has nonetheless ruled that service of process on me was effective. The case will now move on to substantive arguments."

Li said he is "of course disappointed with the judgement".

"However, the AG will still need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that my private facebook post somehow scandalised Singapore’s judiciary," he added.

Li also wrote in his post:

"It is now one year and 8 months since this surreal mess started. One wonders how much state resources have been spent going after myself and my mother? As far as I can tell, my uncle, Lee Hsien Loong, seems quite happy with the situation, even though it reminds everyone of his shameful conduct over 38 Oxley road."